Rachel Reeves can’t win, can she?

Yes of course you are right. We all believe and trust this Chancellor in what she says. Of course. Which is why she is the most popular and successful Chancellor on record.

It does as that was Labour’s method for some bizarre reason. Chaotic and damaging.

I think you maybe mistaken.

The OBR has NOT confirmed this:

• The OBR found that an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury in February 2024 but were not disclosed to the OBR ahead of its March 2024 forecast.

Then there is things such as the state of the Prisons, Defence spend, Compensation pay outs, even tariffs.

None of these were ever planned for.

Seems to me that its the media throwing about these proposed taxes, this was done before the last GE, before the last budget too.

I'm not saying there isn't some kite flying but you only have to look at where these stories first appear, to know their origin.

We can only hope.

And the OBR have confirmed that all the information was available if she cared to look.

The letter from the OBR was dated 29 July 2024. it says:

The document published today by HM Treasury entitled Fixing the foundations: Public spending audit 2024-25 identifies £21.9 billion in net pressures on the DEL budgets set by the Treasury for the current financial year 2024-25.

^We were made aware of the extent of these pressures at a meeting with the
Treasury last week.^

If the OBR wasn’t aware of those pressures until 22 July, how was the chancellor supposed to know several months before the election when the manifesto was written?

It feels like a game of musical chairs at the moment. Throw out different taxes every week to see how it goes down and everyone just has to hope it isn't them that's out when music stops. Income tax one week, property the tax. Hopefully it is will be welfare reform when the music actually stops on Wednesday.

Come on. We all know RR has been teasing us with the TTBPBH. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. And the OBR have confirmed that all the information was available if she cared to look. It just suits her to pretend she didn't have that information.

Or, more worryingly for the UK, she was given the information but didn't really understand it (on the basis she hasnt got much/any experience as an economist). Which Im afraid is what I'm now starting to suspect.....

To be fair. Before the election Reeves and Starmer kept saying that the tories plans were unfunded. They came in went on a public sector spending spree. They backtracked on some of the cuts that were due to fund it, had some nonsense policies like VAT on school fees which everyone who wasn't labour said would be a net cost to the tax payer, and gambled on the future growth. It doesn't take a genius to release that if you said the current plans weren't funded and you spent more than that it won't work.

Of course she can't win with everyone. No policy is going to get agreement with both the hard working funders of the country and the workshy layabouts.

You keep saying this despite being given evidence to the contrary from the head of the OBR, no less. If he didn’t know, how would the incoming chancellor?

Okay. So tax receipts are up and we have a very small amount of growth.
Where is the fiscal headroom? There isn’t any in fact we have a huge black hole to plug.
The books need balancing. Maybe a small income tax increase in feasible but many (me and the markets included) want to see that combined with measures to control spending. We almost certainly need to look at benefits (including pensions) and restructuring how we fund the NHS. Otherwise, she will just need to ask for more.
As an aside (and we don’t really know what will be in the budget given all the conflicting reports) some of the suggestions are pure lunacy.
Council tax bandings doubling stagnating spending and the house market. Restrictions on the salary sacrifice pensions to 2k - who does that when we most people are grossly under pensioned and the current pension is unsustainable?
I just live in hope that the last several weeks of reporting have been in an attempt to set our expectations as low as possible.

But the Chancellor had all the information required before taking office. She would have been fully informed.

One might almost suspect she is pretending she didn't know for political reasons.....

But you re well aware of the difficulty in growing an economy, its not like many developed countries have managed it.

Also, as i said up thread, the demands for immediate spend is now, not in 5 years.
Not least in Defence.

Tax receipts are at record highs and the economy has grown better than it did under the Tories.

"Not spending any money on them.... in the short term"

Really? We have tried that and all it has led to is out of control waiting lists, crumbling roads, public buildings, retention issues - more economic stagnation, lower productivity & far higher costs in the longer term.

Remind me again of the stupidity of doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different outcome?

I’m surprised this is still being said. But no I don’t agree with your take.

Because the chancellor doesn’t know the truth of the situation until they take office. Obviously.
Come on, ES. You’re bright. You know that.

@38thparallel

These asylum seekers have been moving across borders and then arriving at our border where they claim asylum.

Not all claim asylum. Some disappear into the black market and work illegally. Suggest you watch the recent BBC investigation into the mini market scam.

One guy, from Kurdistan I remember, was working in a shop selling illegal tobacco products and vapes. He estimated weekly turnover to be £3K. No tax paid.

If this is illegal why aren’t they being arrested?

Some are deported, but not in sufficient numbers.

I would say that as they arrived by illegal means and took part in an illegal activity, that makes them criminals. UK prisons are overcrowded and they have been many cases where inmates have been wrongly released.

Australia passed legislation that allowed them to physically tow illegal immigrants back to where they came from. However, the UK does not have a government strong enough to make those decisions. Likewise, the ECHR is more interested in protecting criminals than law abiding citizens.

Southernecho · Today 18:22
What has cross channel immigration got to do with Reeves and the up coming budget?

Globetrotter mentioned upthread the reasons why she voted Labour including the fact they promised to smash the gangs and this has been mentioned on a few posts.
I wanted to know what laws were being broken and this has been explained to me - though how Starmer thinks he can do anything to stop whoever is assisting refugees to Calais and providing them with dinghies I have no idea.
Sometimes threads divert from the main theme, not sure it matters.

The OBR have done no such thing. That is not an endorsement that a previously unknown £22billion black hole exists. The existence of the black hole is highly contentious. Given RRs track record of lies we would be absolute fools to believe her on that one.

There is a black hole of around £50billion which has been caused by RRs decisions since taking office however. Have you got in a muddle about that one?

By raising taxes you slow the economy, this means that the Government gets less tax revenue which means taxes have to go up and so on in a perpetual doom loop.

The best way to pay for the NHS, roads, public buildings etc is through a growing economy and this means in the short run not spending any money on them from increased taxation.

They didn’t and they haven’t. I refer you to paragraph 2.

https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Letter-from-Richard-Hughes-to-the-Treasury-Select-Committee-on-the-OBR-review-of-the-March-2024-forecast-for-departmental-expenditure-limits.pdf

What has cross channel immigration got to do with Reeves and the up coming budget??

Blossomtoes
What part of moved illegally across an international border are you having trouble with?^ sounds quite sarcastic which is, I’m sure, how it was intended.
Anyway you didn’t answer my question but Globetrotter has so now I know.

@38thparallel

However it isn’t illegal to arrive in a country and claim asylum.

If it’s done through the correct legal process, yes.

so unless the government can prove the refugees have been trafficked I don’t see what laws have been broken.

Many of the people arriving by boat don’t have documentation to establish where they originated from. Most common nationality of boat arrivals are:

Afghanistan 🇦🇫
Eritrea 🇪🇷
Syria 🇸🇾
Iran 🇮🇷
Iraq 🇮🇶

None of those countries have direct transport to Calais. So, they are entering the EU either from across the Mediterranean Sea or Eastern Europe.

Too far to walk. So, they are being assisted to arrive in Calais.

I am sure they did not carry, dinghies, outboard engines and fuel from the point they first entered the EU to Calais. So, they are being assisted.

I can’t see anyone providing that level of assistance free or charge.

So, the logical conclusion is they are being trafficked in return for payment to those who provide transport to Calais and the boats to cross the English Channel.

I didn’t answer rudely. I quoted your post.